I have discovered a philosophical insight that I have never encountered or heard of before.

This is embarrassing. But, a few days ago I discovered a philosophical insight that I have never encountered or heard of before, even in my readings of ancient texts. I have no idea what it is called. I have a hunch that it might be a form of wrongism? But I'm not sure. I thought I'd share it with you here because I really think it has potential. If it already exists I'd appreciate you sharing a source with me. I think it may be what I've been missing in my thoughts.<br><br>It's pretty simple: The best place to find wisdom is in the mind of someone who is wrong. The reason for this is that if you are right, your opinions will be verified with ease. But for those who are wrong, and are not open to the idea of changing their minds, they must find creative ways to verify their opinions. These will be flawed by definition, but are interesting in their own right. It's sort of like the data available to us that shows the world is round is more interesting than the data we have that shows the world is round. <br><br>There are many examples to point to. An obvious example is Creationism. To be clear, I don't think the world is 6000 years old. But the data that is used to verify this idea is more interesting than the data used to verify the competing narrative of evolution. I'd rather read about the earth being 6000 years old than the scientific consensus we have about its age, which is about 4.5 billion. <br><br>Another example would be Ancient Aliens. While I don't think aliens visited ancient civilizations, I think the data that verifies this idea is more interesting than the data we have on the opposing side. I'd rather learn about "alien remains" and "alien buildings" than the historical truth of ancient civilizations. <br><br>Flawed ideas that must be held together with mental gymnastics are always more interesting than proven truths. I think this is why Flat Earthers are so interesting. The data used to verify this idea is always more interesting than the data used to verify the round earth idea. <br><br>The movie "Loose Change" is an example of this, which is a documentary that "proves" 9/11 was an inside job. The arguments held within are more interesting than arguments that counter them, which are rooted in basic science and engineering. <br><br>In philosophy it's the same. Arendt is more interesting than Plato. Schopenhauer is more interesting than Kant. Nietzsche is more interesting than Marx. <br><br>My suggestion is that wrongism is a form of postmodernism that seeks to replace truth with what is actually more interesting. Wrongism claims that there is no truth, only compelling narratives about truths. This ideology is rooted in the idea that the mind of someone who is wrong is more interesting than the mind of someone who is right. <br><br>-WRONG AND INCOMPETENT.